tollbooth_willy:Elegy: shower_in_my_socks: tollbooth_willy: Debate? It was many people pointing out that this is a bullshiat comparison and you repeatedly ignoring anything that didn't fit your narrative of "he guilty."

No, it was a bunch of people with reading comprehension problems that couldn't understand that the 911 tape contained what the husband SAID had just happened, not a recording of it as it actually happened. And as soon as I pointed out that the 911 recording was from after the shooting and therefore could not have possibly contained a recording of what had happened before the shooting, you and everyone else here STFU.

I'm actually less interested in arguing the merits of the Marissa Alexander case over and over and over, and more about celebrating the fact that a man saw justice and a fair trial despite intense political pressure to throw him in jail for no other reason than outrage.

You did mention you had listened to the 911 call. Can you give me a link? I'll be happy to pick this argument up the next time there's a Marissa Alexander thread (and you know there'll be one sooner or later, it's the latest racial narrative du jour)

https://soundcloud.com/rippa-2/marissa-alexanders-husbandIt is after the fact (hadn't listened to it before), but honestly after listening it sounds fairly convincing. Not sure a guy that had a criminal record and had just beaten his woman would call the cops in that situation.

Thanks! Will listen to it in the morning. For now, its finally off to bed.

Nutsac_Jim:the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force.

zimmerman wasn't reasonably cautious nor prudent or he would have been waiting in his vehicle. as he had agreed to do. (read the transcripts of the 911 call) also if he really thought martin was going to cause him grevious harm then he'd never been in a fight before. zimmerman, in violation of his neighborhood watch training, went looking for martin -- with a gun -- a gun he had been told to leave home while on "patrol".

i am disappointed that so many fail to see that zimmerman was the aggressor here. and it backfired on him. and yet so many excuse him.

Dimensio:oregon fubaralas: Dimensio: oregon fubaralas: Dimensio: oregon fubaralas: When the 911 dispatcher told him to not follow, Zimmerman legally gave up all right to use the standard ground defense. The jury was instructed to IGNORE that law.

Zimmerman will lose on appeal though. But by then, the damage will be done.

Are you attempting to "troll", or are you genuinely entirely ignorant of United States law?

It's not just Florida.

You did not address my question.

Are you attempting to "troll", or is your statement issued due to an ignorance of law?

I did answer your question, and ignorance is the farthest thing I'm from. Read the book:http://lmgtfy.com/?q=THE+FLORIDA+LAW+BOOK

You are mistaken. You have not explained whether you are "trolling" or whether your statements are a result of a complete lack of understanding of law.

Curious:zimmerman wasn't reasonably cautious nor prudent or he would have been waiting in his vehicle. as he had agreed to do. (read the transcripts of the 911 call) also if he really thought martin was going to cause him grevious harm then he'd never been in a fight before. zimmerman, in violation of his neighborhood watch training, went looking for martin -- with a gun -- a gun he had been told to leave home while on "patrol".

i am disappointed that so many fail to see that zimmerman was the aggressor here. and it backfired on him. and yet so many excuse him.

None of those things are illegal, or make him an aggressor. You are simply wrong.

dchurch0:I just finished setting up a couple new servers and a SAN, and then migrating all my VM's to the new hardware. So I crack open a beer and open Fark, only to see this thread. Now I'm gonna be up all night reading everything here. Thanks Farkers!

Dimensio:EbolaNYC: Dimensio: EbolaNYC: aerojockey: Gyrfalcon: That Zimmerman could have avoided the fight by staying back (or better still, staying in his car) does not matter to a verdict of self-defense; what matter is, at the moment of decision, did he reasonably believe his life was in danger? And clearly, the jury agreed that he did.

Something occurred to me as I read this. Say (hypothetically, don't know if it's true or not) Zimmerman did get out of his car and assault Martin unprovoked. Say Martin fought back. Say Zimmerman was in fear of his life and shot Martin. Could Zimmerman be potentially found guilty of felony murder?

I know that wasn't the prosecution's case, but.

Had Zimmerman been killed instead, Trayvon would have (or should) been acquitted for the same reason, stand your ground/self defense. That law does little more than make it ok for people to kill each other with a much better chance of getting off.

What specific actions of Mr. Zimmerman would have justified the use of deadly force by Mr. Martin?

He felt threatened and feared for his safety.

You did not address my question.

What specific actions of Mr. Zimmerman would have justified the use of deadly force by Mr. Martin?

Yes I did. You really have no idea what the stand your ground allows do you? Do a little reading, it's easy to find a list of every case under this law, my phone sucks for posting links but I am sure you're up to it.

Curious:Nutsac_Jim: the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force.

zimmerman wasn't reasonably cautious nor prudent or he would have been waiting in his vehicle. as he had agreed to do. (read the transcripts of the 911 call) also if he really thought martin was going to cause him grevious harm then he'd never been in a fight before. zimmerman, in violation of his neighborhood watch training, went looking for martin -- with a gun -- a gun he had been told to leave home while on "patrol".

i am disappointed that so many fail to see that zimmerman was the aggressor here. and it backfired on him. and yet so many excuse him.

He might have been, but nothing in the events that happened last night was illegal until the moment someone started the fight. Zimmerman said it was Martin. With a lack of proof to the contrary, the jury had no other choice but to absolve him. Martin's death, while tragic and avoidable, was not necessarily illegal.

Dimensio:Speculating, without basis, on actions that Mr. Zimmerman "could" have taken does not constitute an explanation of the specific actions that Mr. Zimmerman did take.

My apologies, I thought the "Could" was implied, since the facts of the this particular case has already proven that he performed no specific actions that would have justified the use of deadly force by TM.

EbolaNYC:Dimensio: EbolaNYC: Dimensio: EbolaNYC: aerojockey: Gyrfalcon: That Zimmerman could have avoided the fight by staying back (or better still, staying in his car) does not matter to a verdict of self-defense; what matter is, at the moment of decision, did he reasonably believe his life was in danger? And clearly, the jury agreed that he did.

Something occurred to me as I read this. Say (hypothetically, don't know if it's true or not) Zimmerman did get out of his car and assault Martin unprovoked. Say Martin fought back. Say Zimmerman was in fear of his life and shot Martin. Could Zimmerman be potentially found guilty of felony murder?

I know that wasn't the prosecution's case, but.

Had Zimmerman been killed instead, Trayvon would have (or should) been acquitted for the same reason, stand your ground/self defense. That law does little more than make it ok for people to kill each other with a much better chance of getting off.

What specific actions of Mr. Zimmerman would have justified the use of deadly force by Mr. Martin?

He felt threatened and feared for his safety.

You did not address my question.

What specific actions of Mr. Zimmerman would have justified the use of deadly force by Mr. Martin?

Yes I did. You really have no idea what the stand your ground allows do you? Do a little reading, it's easy to find a list of every case under this law, my phone sucks for posting links but I am sure you're up to it.

Curious:Nutsac_Jim: the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force.

zimmerman wasn't reasonably cautious nor prudent or he would have been waiting in his vehicle. as he had agreed to do. (read the transcripts of the 911 call) also if he really thought martin was going to cause him grevious harm then he'd never been in a fight before. zimmerman, in violation of his neighborhood watch training, went looking for martin -- with a gun -- a gun he had been told to leave home while on "patrol".

i am disappointed that so many fail to see that zimmerman was the aggressor here. and it backfired on him. and yet so many excuse him.

That's because he killed a black kid. They're ALWAYS up to no good, you know.

oregon fubaralas:Dimensio: oregon fubaralas: Dimensio: oregon fubaralas: Dimensio: oregon fubaralas: When the 911 dispatcher told him to not follow, Zimmerman legally gave up all right to use the standard ground defense. The jury was instructed to IGNORE that law.

Zimmerman will lose on appeal though. But by then, the damage will be done.

Are you attempting to "troll", or are you genuinely entirely ignorant of United States law?

It's not just Florida.

You did not address my question.

Are you attempting to "troll", or is your statement issued due to an ignorance of law?

I did answer your question, and ignorance is the farthest thing I'm from. Read the book:http://lmgtfy.com/?q=THE+FLORIDA+LAW+BOOK

You are mistaken. You have not explained whether you are "trolling" or whether your statements are a result of a complete lack of understanding of law.

Listen, you obviously didn't read the second title.

My question remains unanswered. I still do not know whether you are "trolling" or whether you are willfully ignorant of established law.

Dimensio:s2s2s2: EbolaNYC: Boojum2k: EbolaNYC: Had Zimmerman been killed instead, Trayvon would have faced charges for murder 2 and been convicted, as there is no right to beatdown and kill someone for looking at you. And we'd never have heard of it, as it would have been a strictly local story.

Silly rabbit. History is written by the victorious. There were no witnesses remember?

When the police arrived to find a completely injury free Martin, there wouldn't need to be(but just so you know, there were).

Would not the police have found injuries to Mr. Martin's knuckles?

I meant injuries he hadn't caused himself in the process of the assault.

Dimensio:oregon fubaralas: Dimensio: oregon fubaralas: Dimensio: oregon fubaralas: Dimensio: oregon fubaralas: When the 911 dispatcher told him to not follow, Zimmerman legally gave up all right to use the standard ground defense. The jury was instructed to IGNORE that law.

Zimmerman will lose on appeal though. But by then, the damage will be done.

Are you attempting to "troll", or are you genuinely entirely ignorant of United States law?

It's not just Florida.

You did not address my question.

Are you attempting to "troll", or is your statement issued due to an ignorance of law?

I did answer your question, and ignorance is the farthest thing I'm from. Read the book:http://lmgtfy.com/?q=THE+FLORIDA+LAW+BOOK

You are mistaken. You have not explained whether you are "trolling" or whether your statements are a result of a complete lack of understanding of law.

Listen, you obviously didn't read the second title.

My question remains unanswered. I still do not know whether you are "trolling" or whether you are willfully ignorant of established law.

Lorelle:Tellingthem: Lorelle: No justice tonight (no surprise), but there will be eventually. Karma's a biatch.

mr lawson: So a Hispanic shoots a black and is acquitted by women, but it's still white men's fault.

He's half white and uses a white name.

Heh...nice. Not Hispanic enough for ya? Maybe if he had the last name of Hernandez or something he'd be more Hispanic in your eyes? I had no idea that a name made more or less "white".

Again, he's half white. For some reason, white people keep trying to label him as solely "Hispanic."

So what? He supposedly identifies himself as Hispanic. So who are we to say "nope you are wrong, you are half white and have a white name so you are white." Why do you get to decide what race he is over him?

EbolaNYC:Dimensio: EbolaNYC: Dimensio: EbolaNYC: aerojockey: Gyrfalcon: That Zimmerman could have avoided the fight by staying back (or better still, staying in his car) does not matter to a verdict of self-defense; what matter is, at the moment of decision, did he reasonably believe his life was in danger? And clearly, the jury agreed that he did.

Something occurred to me as I read this. Say (hypothetically, don't know if it's true or not) Zimmerman did get out of his car and assault Martin unprovoked. Say Martin fought back. Say Zimmerman was in fear of his life and shot Martin. Could Zimmerman be potentially found guilty of felony murder?

I know that wasn't the prosecution's case, but.

Had Zimmerman been killed instead, Trayvon would have (or should) been acquitted for the same reason, stand your ground/self defense. That law does little more than make it ok for people to kill each other with a much better chance of getting off.

What specific actions of Mr. Zimmerman would have justified the use of deadly force by Mr. Martin?

He felt threatened and feared for his safety.

You did not address my question.

What specific actions of Mr. Zimmerman would have justified the use of deadly force by Mr. Martin?

Yes I did. You really have no idea what the stand your ground allows do you? Do a little reading, it's easy to find a list of every case under this law, my phone sucks for posting links but I am sure you're up to it.

You have not identified any specific actions of Mr. Zimmerman that would have justified the use of deadly force by Mr. Martin. You therefore did not address my question. Your claim that "He felt threatened and feared for his safety." does not constitute a description of any specific action of Mr. Zimmerman.

What specific actions of Mr. Zimmerman would have justified the use of deadly force by Mr. Martin?

EbolaNYC:It's not illegal under Florida law, but in most places it would be described as aggressive behavior.

Fortunately for Mr. Zimmerman he was in a trial where people want proof of actions in a scenario, rather in a Fark thread where you can claim anything you want until you get tired of people proving you wrong.

Curious:Nutsac_Jim: the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force.

zimmerman wasn't reasonably cautious nor prudent or he would have been waiting in his vehicle. as he had agreed to do. (read the transcripts of the 911 call) also if he really thought martin was going to cause him grevious harm then he'd never been in a fight before. zimmerman, in violation of his neighborhood watch training, went looking for martin -- with a gun -- a gun he had been told to leave home while on "patrol".

i am disappointed that so many fail to see that zimmerman was the aggressor here. and it backfired on him. and yet so many excuse him.

Let me put this in simple terms for you. For Zimmerman to have been the aggressor, he would have had to:

That's pretty much it. Following him around, calling the police, etc. do not make him the aggressor. Neither does pulling out his pistol and shooting the guy currently beating the crap out of him. There was no evidence of either of those events occurring. Regardless of the public opinion, the lack of evidence means there is just gobs of room for reasonable doubt, especially with the injuries that Zimmerman suffered. Reasonable doubt means no conviction if the jury is doing their job.

Southern100:Dimensio: Speculating, without basis, on actions that Mr. Zimmerman "could" have taken does not constitute an explanation of the specific actions that Mr. Zimmerman did take.

My apologies, I thought the "Could" was implied, since the facts of the this particular case has already proven that he performed no specific actions that would have justified the use of deadly force by TM.

EbolaNYC disagrees with your assessment, though as yet EbolaNYC has not identified the specific actions through which such justification would have existed.

Several people here misread a paragraph from an article that mentioned the 911 call. They thought what they were reading was a quote taken from the wife's voice on the call threatening the guy, but in fact the article was just saying that that's what the husband TOLD the 911 operator she'd said, because the shooting happened before he called the police. He was already outside and down the street when he called 911, so his wife's voice isn't on that call. Although I couldn't even locate the part on the 911 tape where he talks about what she said, but I was skipping around after a couple of minutes, so maybe I missed it. Maybe that claim came out later at trial.

Curious:and it's a disservice to deliberately misquote someone.i notice that you didn't refute any of my points however ignorant you perceived them.

I don't usually fully quote posts in large threads. They're already painful enough to navigate.What am I supposed to refute?You said you watch daily summaries on TV and have seen some stuff online, then you gave your interpretation of the law based on limited information about the case.

I'm not calling you stupid or anything. It's just tiring to see so many people upset after the narrative they were fed to maximize ratings isn't admissible in court.It's not a good situation when anyone is killed, but it'd be worse to set precedent by letting social media determine a person's guilt.

Dimensio:Mentat: Dimensio: Is an alternative available other than legally prohibiting individuals from using force if they are in fact threatened by a violent attacker?

What if they are threatened by that violent attacker because they provoked the confrontation by chasing him down? You shouldn't be able to escalate a situation and/or provoke a fight and then claim self-defense when the fight turns against you. It's nothing more than a grown-up version of the "He hit me first!" defense.

In most states, if police or prosecution are able to prove that the user of deadly force initiated the confrontation by "chasing down" the deceased, then self-defense laws are not applicable.

Actually, it depends. If you start a fistfight, you generally can't claim self-defense unless certain things happen, such as attempting to break contact by "retreating to the wall." Once you retreat to the wall, you MAY possibly be able to claim self defense if you reasonably believe that you face lethal force.

Dimensio:EbolaNYC: Dimensio: EbolaNYC: Dimensio: EbolaNYC: aerojockey: Gyrfalcon: That Zimmerman could have avoided the fight by staying back (or better still, staying in his car) does not matter to a verdict of self-defense; what matter is, at the moment of decision, did he reasonably believe his life was in danger? And clearly, the jury agreed that he did.

Something occurred to me as I read this. Say (hypothetically, don't know if it's true or not) Zimmerman did get out of his car and assault Martin unprovoked. Say Martin fought back. Say Zimmerman was in fear of his life and shot Martin. Could Zimmerman be potentially found guilty of felony murder?

I know that wasn't the prosecution's case, but.

Had Zimmerman been killed instead, Trayvon would have (or should) been acquitted for the same reason, stand your ground/self defense. That law does little more than make it ok for people to kill each other with a much better chance of getting off.

What specific actions of Mr. Zimmerman would have justified the use of deadly force by Mr. Martin?

He felt threatened and feared for his safety.

You did not address my question.

What specific actions of Mr. Zimmerman would have justified the use of deadly force by Mr. Martin?

Yes I did. You really have no idea what the stand your ground allows do you? Do a little reading, it's easy to find a list of every case under this law, my phone sucks for posting links but I am sure you're up to it.

You have not identified any specific actions of Mr. Zimmerman that would have justified the use of deadly force by Mr. Martin. You therefore did not address my question. Your claim that "He felt threatened and feared for his safety." does not constitute a description of any specific action of Mr. Zimmerman.

What specific actions of Mr. Zimmerman would have justified the use of deadly force by Mr. Martin?

You see it's very simple. You have one person's side of the story, so how can you not imagine the roles being reversed?

oregon fubaralas:Dimensio: oregon fubaralas: Dimensio: oregon fubaralas: Dimensio: oregon fubaralas: Dimensio: oregon fubaralas: When the 911 dispatcher told him to not follow, Zimmerman legally gave up all right to use the standard ground defense. The jury was instructed to IGNORE that law.

Zimmerman will lose on appeal though. But by then, the damage will be done.

Are you attempting to "troll", or are you genuinely entirely ignorant of United States law?

It's not just Florida.

You did not address my question.

Are you attempting to "troll", or is your statement issued due to an ignorance of law?

I did answer your question, and ignorance is the farthest thing I'm from. Read the book:http://lmgtfy.com/?q=THE+FLORIDA+LAW+BOOK

You are mistaken. You have not explained whether you are "trolling" or whether your statements are a result of a complete lack of understanding of law.

Listen, you obviously didn't read the second title.

My question remains unanswered. I still do not know whether you are "trolling" or whether you are willfully ignorant of established law.

Really?

And you're doing it on your PHONE! LOLOLOLOL

You have evidently confused me with another individual. You have also not addressed my question.